Editorial: Smile, you’re on candid camera

In the days before the eyes of government became omnipresent courtesy of technology, a driver had to really be trying to get a ticket for running a red light.

Short of blasting through the intersection right in front of a police car, there was little chance of being busted because a law enforcement officer had to witness the violation to ticket an offender.

An exception was when there was a crash involved and police were able to sort through the “it was green, no it was red” debate among drivers.

Some cities started to counter the rise in intersection accidents by installing cameras that could provide almost indisputable proof. Although such cameras had been used extensively in other nations as early as the 1960s, it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s larger U.S. cities jumped on board.

Here’s how they work, basically: A camera is connected to the computer controlling the cycling of traffic lights. If a vehicle crosses the stop-bar at an intersection after the light changes to red, the camera captures two images of the vehicle and its license plate. The photos are reviewed and if it is determined there was a violation, a ticket is mailed to the vehicle’s registered owner.

That’s the technical side, and it’s pretty simple.

But the political side is more convoluted — no surprise in a nation that will try to create a personal rights issue out of the local diner burning an order of toast.

On one side are groups that point to numerous studies showing the deterrence effect of such devices. One, by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, indicates the presence of cameras helped reduce some crashes significantly — particularly right-angle crashes, or T-boning — and therefore were beneficial.

The same study and others, though, said red-light cameras could be the reason for an increase in rear-end collisions because of people trying to stop suddenly to avoid a ticket and instead getting hit from behind.

Larger issues for opponents are the question of privacy rights and due process of law. Some challenge that red-light cameras are basically a way for municipalities to make more money — including claims that some places shortened the time the light stayed on amber just so more drivers would be in violation.

How lucrative are we talking? An Illinois News Network study said Lakemoor, a Chicago-area village of about 6,000 people, has three red-light cameras in use. In 2015, they generated $1.4 million for the village and helped it build a new municipal center. Village President Ryan Weihofen told the news agency, however, that the amount was down from 2014 and will continue to fall as drivers’ behaviors change.

“We want a situation where we do not make any money at all,” he told an INN reporter.

But more and more states have been putting restrictions on red-light camera use or prohibiting them all together, even though the courts have generally upheld their use as constitutional.

In Illinois, there’s a little added controversy. A Chicago official was sentenced last month to 10 years in prison after being convicted of bribery, fraud and extortion for maneuvering contracts worth millions to one traffic system company. In Chicago, red-light cameras are a roughly $600 million moneymaker.

State House lawmakers have proposed banning such cameras in the state. The asterisk on that sentence is that the change would only apply to non-home rule municipalities, so there are dozens and dozens of exemptions. The Senate has yet to take up the proposal.

Supporters believe the system is too broken to fix and should be dumped.

That seems a rather extreme approach to take. There are concerns to address to provide due process fairness for drivers and ensure the programs do not fall victim to corruption.

But if the notion that the unblinking eye of the camera is watching can help to make the roads safer, then it seems worth reforming the system rather than removing it.